Realistically, you'll need to spend $600, unless you find a deal. If you have lenses, or access to lenses (aka, Dad and Mom have an old camera in closet with a bag full of nice fast primes, or whatever).

Or you can get a nice digital compact for $500. The Canon G10, the Ricoh GX100, the Panasonic LX3. Personally, I think the G9 is a bit better, at high ISO it was slightly better, and it also had a 28mm wide angle lens, the G10 starts at 35mm.

However, none of these even remotely compete with a 5 year old DSLR above ISO 200 in real world shooting.

I have a mint Canon 20D I'd sell. Has stock 50 mm 1.8 lens and a zoom (Canon EF-S 18-55 mm 3.5/5.6). Also 2 gig card and LowePro bag. $600 for all (firm).

It is going to be a little while before I jump at something. X-Mas has a funny way of making me broke.

But Thanks.

I film a lot of off road vid's and edit them with music for friends. We (me and my wife) also shoot a lot of stills every trip and make up slide shows with music. I have found on many trips the shooting is more fun then the driving. Don't get me wrong I love off roading but the people in the stills and vid's seem to really dig being in them and that is really great. It's mostly just friends but it's nice to make others happy. For most the vid's a cheap handy cam is fine but I would like to get better stills for sure.

I don't know much about the point and shoot market, but I know a number of people with Canon Powershots and even the video quality on the G7 is quite good considering the size and cost of the camera. The G10 retails for about $400-500 new.

Is it the best option? I have no idea - like I said, point and shoots aren't my thing - but it's a very decent option in your price range for a compact and relatively simple camera that will produce still and motion captures.

All over the place are ads for the D40 & kit lens (18-55) for $450; add in the 55-200 (but non-VR, boo) for a sum of $550. And surely this Nikon has its other-brand price-point competitors.

In reply to:

Or you can get a nice digital compact for $500. The Canon G10, the Ricoh GX100, the Panasonic LX3. Personally, I think the G9 is a bit better, at high ISO it was slightly better, and it also had a 28mm wide angle lens, the G10 starts at 35mm.

All over the place are ads for the D40 & kit lens (18-55) for $450; add in the 55-200 (but non-VR, boo) for a sum of $550. And surely this Nikon has its other-brand price-point competitors.

In reply to:

Or you can get a nice digital compact for $500. The Canon G10, the Ricoh GX100, the Panasonic LX3. Personally, I think the G9 is a bit better, at high ISO it was slightly better, and it also had a 28mm wide angle lens, the G10 starts at 35mm.

However, none of these even remotely compete{s} with a 5 year old DSLR above ISO 200 in real world shooting.

Not even remotely, though many on photographer forums who, own and use the camera would beg to disagree, even re the higher ISO slams the G10 has been given.

That said, for easy pocketa-portability, there are some highly regarded smaller compacts from Fuji, Panasonic, Sony, ... .

In reply to:

So my advice is pick up a used 2 or 3 year old DSLR, and 1 good lens.

Just the one? Some P&Ses will see you through a long range, and with macro capability--something that costs you 2-3 lenses SLR-wise. So, you have your personal needs to think about.

*kN*

Just like to point out, the D40 is basically a 2-3 year old camera. Unless you are talking D40X, and even then it's a 2-3 year old camera. Keep in mind the D200 debuted with the Sony 10.2MP sensor back in early 2006, even though that sensor is still used today on several cameras.

The D40 uses the same Sony 6MP sensor found in the 2004 model D70, Pentax D series, and K100 series, as well as the Sony A100.

The D40X uses the same sensor found in the A200, D200, D80, K10D, D40X, K200D.

So while these might be new, they are older cameras. Or he could just buy a used model, and put more money toward lenses, which IMO is where the smarter money is put. Lenses hold value, bodies don't.

That said, aside from the D200 (because of it's noise levels) and the Sony because I can't stand Sony, the other cameras were all solid cameras with good IQ and features.

Ahhh, Google...yeah, Google the G9, 35mm lens, sorry, I know a lot off the top of my head about specs but occasionally even I make a mistake. You got me, it happens. So yes, the G10 has a 28mm lens and crappy performance as higher ISO (like 200 up), and the G9 has a normal (35mm) lens, but does a little better at ISO 200 and into 400.

As far as the G10 debate, we've had this debate before. The fact is the camera might be fun, it might be a blast to use, it might be able to focus to 1 cm, but in the real world this camera doesn't come home with the goods.

As far as lenses, the P&S do have longer zoom ranges, but at a cost of IQ. They vignette, have soft corners filled with distortion, and are slow. You'd be better off going with 2 f/4 zooms for a DSLR which while not fast, make up for it with better lens quality, lower loss of IQ through diffraction, better high ISO capabilities. Something like a 17-70 F/4 with a 70-300 f/4-5.6 is most likely not gonna cost a ton, and will still out resolve a P&S. Add in a manual focus 50mm prime and a 30mm extension tube for macro!

I actually enjoy using my G3 which is back from the dead after 2 years hiatus, yet even compared to my similar age 6MP DSLR the final prints just don't compare. Oddly I do use my very compact 6MP DSLR and I print up to 12x18 images from it.

I have no doubt that compacts do certain things better, just like medium format and large format cameras do things better than 35mm. The bottom line is if you want the very best in print quality, even a base model 3 year old DSLR with a decent lens, will beat out the best of the compacts in 2008 in a all around shootout.

Just like to point out, the D40 is basically a 2-3 year old camera. ... So while these might be new, they are older cameras. ... ---------- That said, the EOS 5D is still among the very best RAW sensors, still among the best FF cameras, and the price is dropping.

Old is gold.

(-;

ps: Pico, I might need you: just discovered someone who "used to be into photography" but has a slightly bum camera (film) --"light meter is what crapped out "-- and never got into digital. She has . . . a Pentax ; and I mused that a used, price-dropping K10d might be a good Welcome! to digital! We might need pointers.

K10Ds are selling used for under $400, but rumor has it the K20D Super is coming out with some useless features (built in GPS), meaning the K20D will be avail used shortly...A guy I know got a K10D with the vertical grip used for $450, considering the grip still sells brand new for $125 that is a killer deal.

I've been debating buying a second K10D, but in light of the fact I have a K20D on loan again while I test some Pentax prime telephotos, I'm not rushing into anything.

I might buy a K-m just for shigiggles because i like the size of it (about D40X or E-420 size but with SR built in), and having 2 cameras with the same sensor would make life easier! I love my 2003 6MP D but the whole step ISO settings, and lack of SR are growing old. Ultimately, I have been begging Pentax to produce a digital MX....aka, the MX-D but the not even close to a digital MX K-m/K2000 might hold me over for a P&S size alternative till then. Afterall, Olympus and Panasonic are producing a whole new camera system based on cameras only a little smaller than the K-m/D40X/E-420.

Now the only question is, if I buy a K-m should I get the white one (and yes I'm joking, it's hideous, but trust me Canon and Nikon will follow suit if it sells cameras)....

The Panasonic G1 (micro 4/3s) is colored. Ipods, laptops, and pretty much everything else in life these days is colored. Also, cameras in this class are aimed at people stepping up from Point and Shoots, and you guessed it, many point and shoots come in colors!!!

Bottom line, expect the Rebel and D40 class cameras to follow suit (the K-m/K2000 is a entry level camera), unless Panasonic and Pentax have millions of dollars worth of colored inventory on the shelves that they can't sell just because it's colored.

While I think it's retarded, I also think colored iPods are, but then, my netbook matches my car (unintentional, only color they had), and I bet there are people out there that will buy a white/green/red/blue camera just because it's that color.

In the end this is a costless experiment for Pentax...produce enough of these to make them visible, but not enough to take a loss on. And there is no denying that the white camera next to all the black and silver cameras is going to get some notice, so if nothing else it's name recognition.

Oh, I need to add that along with laptops, Ipods, video cameras, and other things, Canon L lenses are white as well.

Now Canon claimed some nonsense about heat on the lens, but Pentax, Oly, Nikon, and others all made black telephotos that seemed to work for decades. Actually, never mind, Pentax long teles were usually white or silver (crap, there goes a great argument).

My guess is Canon did this as a marketing scheme. And did it work? Sure, look at how often the amount of white lenses in a crowd is commented on!!

btw, it seemed to be well received at the 2009 CES going on as we speak. Engadget called it "lustworthy".

In reply to:

Let's just say this straight out: the white Pentax K2000 is one of the hottest DSLRs we've ever seen. It's seriously lustworthy. Considering how great the reviews have been, we'd say it's definitely worthy of a spot on your list if you're in the market. Pentax's less-interesting P70 and E70 were also out -- they look nice enough, for being pretty ordinary. Check it all in the gallery!

If you go to the endgadget site there is a lot of chatter on whether it's ugly, hot, innovative or not much of anything.

Favorite quote is this:

In reply to:

Steve @ Jan 8th 2009 6:46PM

"I don't know how they could think that cheap plasticy looking thing is "Hot"."

It just occurred to me that I wrote that comment on my white MacBook which I think looks great. Go figure.

And my second favorite:

In reply to:

Joseph @ Jan 8th 2009 4:52PM

I think it is because big tele's are white. So this references big tele and :: = lustworthy.

For me, it's a pentax...if it was nikon or Canon or apple it would be revolutionary and a long time coming.

K10Ds are selling used for under $400, but rumor has it the K20D Super is coming out with some useless features (built in GPS), meaning the K20D will be avail used shortly...A guy I know got a K10D with the vertical grip used for $450, considering the grip still sells brand new for $125 that is a killer deal.

Do you have any feelings about the K200D? I have a (likely irrational) aversion to buying a previous generation cam.

The other camera I've been looking at is the Nikon D60, but the K200D has features that appeal to me -- vibration reduction built in to the camera body, rather than the lens, the ability to use my semi-ancient pentax lenses, and so forth.

I'd say DMM FCU's are the best cheapish first good cam's. High quality and good price, but I don't know if they are digital or not, and I have seen a film of dirt on mine after climbing in wet situations, oh wait, you're talking cameras, I get it.

I'd check out soniccameras.com they generally have some pretty good deals depending on what you want. I know if you just want a cannon rebel with an 18-55 mm lens, they have it for like $400. More info on what you're looking for would be helpful.

Do you have any feelings about the K200D? I have a (likely irrational) aversion to buying a previous generation cam.

The other camera I've been looking at is the Nikon D60, but the K200D has features that appeal to me -- vibration reduction built in to the camera body, rather than the lens, the ability to use my semi-ancient pentax lenses, and so forth.

I was hoping they'd send me this little camera to test, but instead I got a sealed 200mm 2.8 and a 300mm f/4. No complaints!

Although the K2000 body is clearly a plastic composite construction, this camera feels like a precision photographic tool. Unlike some of the compact entry-level DSLRs that feel hollow from other manufactures, the K2000 feels "dense," as if Pentax engineers used every square millimeter of space to pack as much technology inside this camera as possible.

Second most impressive line:

In reply to:

During my review I used AA lithium batteries. I expected between 500 and 1000 exposures with the lithium batteries. However, much to my surprise, the camera still indicated the batteries had a nearly full charge after 1500 shots! My shooting was mostly done with autofocus, Shake Reduction on, dust removal upon each startup, and a mixture of flash and non-flash shots using both the built-in flash and an external hot shoe flash.

(note Pentax claims 2000 shots per set of batteries, and since my other Pentax cameras typically exceed the rated shots by 10-20% I'd think 2000 is conservative)

Only thing to note from my perspective is this is the first Pentax without a top LCD, and it uses a slightly different control and menu system. However, to make a camera this small, the top LCD (which I personally find immensely useful) had to go, and I can accept that.

Anyway, I agree with the review that it should be packaged with the 40mm (or 21mm) pancake definite point and shoot replacemen and just short of pocketablet....

As far as the G10 debate, we've had this debate before. The fact is the camera might be fun, it might be a blast to use, it might be able to focus to 1 cm, but in the real world this camera doesn't come home with the goods.

Ha! Here's one pro's gigagaggle of the Obamation with this 3rd-rate G10, coming home with a massive stitch job, offering pan & zoom options. Have fun with that (is Justice Thomas really dozing?).

How I Made a 1,474-Megapixel Photo During President Obama’s Inaugural Address ** UPDATE 1/25/09 — Thank you for the overwhelming enthusiasm for this photo. I am happy to announce that high quality prints will be available shortly. To be notified, send a blank email to pano [at] davidbergman [dot] net.

. . . [This, the biggest inauguration I've shot,] deserved a big photo. I made a panoramic image showing the nearly two million people who watched President Obama’s inaugural address. To do so, I clamped a Gigapan Imager to the railing on the north media platform about six feet from my photo position. The Gigapan is a robotic camera mount that allows me to take multiple images and stitch them together, creating a massive image file. My final photo is made up of 220 Canon G10 images and the file is 59,783 X 24,658 pixels or 1,474 megapixels. It took more than six and a half hours for the Gigapan software to put together all of the images on my Macbook Pro and the completed TIF file is almost 2 gigabytes. Use the controls to zoom and pan around the photo. You can also double click to zoom in and double click again to get even closer.

Well, technological advance? Hmmmm, Mr.Retro thinks, Ha, why I could've done this with just a few dozen shots from my Brownie and a half hour at the ol' abacus: mimeographs ready in no time!

But what makes the G10 especially suited for this. I make high MP panoramas all the time that go into the 100MP range, and with my panoramic head, I expect to begin doing multilayer ones exceeding that...should I abandon the DSLR in favor of the G10?

No offense but the tool that made that panorama was NOT the G10. He could have put any camera on the autopano head. In theory he could have put a film camera on that head and yielded the same results.

Here is another example of similar photography:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0705/deathvalleysky_nps.jpg

I don't remember what the camera was in the article but it was an SLR, film/digital, don't know. People were making high res panoramics long before digital, actually, the only thing the changed with digital is that high end pano heads became obsolete since the software can correct A LOT of imperfections in technique. However, pano heads with reasonable accuracy are still useful for multilayer panos, and architectural panos with wide angle lenses, since nodal heads eliminate parallax from the image.

Anyway, the G10 is no more suited for this type of photography than any other camera made. Unless of course you care to explain why the G10 is better suited? The G10 is a perfectly fine camera but without the gigapan this image doesn't exist!

For instance, I can make a 40MP image by taking 3 14.5MP CMOS images and merging them in panorama factory. This does not mean my 14.5MP is as good as a $20K 40MP digital medium format which could take the same shot in a single exposure. Then again, I'd rather have a 6 or 10MP RAW file for sports shooting where file size is far less important (at least to me).

There is no doubt the G10 can come home with a good image in the real world, there is also no doubt that it's no where near as good as an equivalent DSLR in MOST cases.

As I noted, there are some things it can do better just like there are some things a 40MP MF camera can do better than a DSLR, but most it falls short. The debate is pointless because we could infinitely go around in circles (which we are).

THe only point I am trying to make is that small sensored compacts are a huge compromise in most instances if quality photography is your goal. The doesn't mean they don't have uses, or are something to be avoided. Sometimes a compact is the only way to get a shot, and the shot that is taken is better than the one that is not!

Should we begin a debate of LCD vs DLP vs Plasma? Or AWD vs. 4WD vs. RWD vs. FWD? Again an unwinnable debate since ALL the above excel in different roles.

BTW, I'm guessing he used it for a few reasons:

1. Large DOF of the small sensor can be achieved at a reasonably large aperture...thus faster shutter speeds, less motion blur, faster time to complete all exposures. Lower ISO!!

2. (most likely) The Gigapan is only certified to fit compacts. It WILL fit Nikon and Olympus DSLRs but has not been tested by gigapan, they DO NOT list a Canon DSLR.

3. He was tired of people bashing the G10, wanted to prove it's value.

knudenoggin wrote:

pico23 wrote:

But what makes the G10 especially suited for this.

That wasn't the point--not specialty. As noted, it was a case of the G10 "bringing home the goods, in the real world." As chosen by a pro of sorts. And in contrast to your quoted assertion.

Now, I'm sure he has other cameras; you'll have to ask him why he, on this important, once-in-a-lifetime occasion, used the G10. But he did.